The Nazi Party was not Right-Wing

No they aren't. Anrachists are on the left. I believe in smaller government than you do, and I am far left. You simply have an ahistorical and silly conception of the right vs left paradigm.

 

Please stop!! Authoritarian government has existed for the entire history of humanity. The technology of the 20th century has made those government more efficient at oppressing, but the oppression of the state has always existed!! So is it your assertion that monarchies, Imperial models, tribal confederations, theocracies, Soviet style socialist dictatorships, fascists, etc are all the same and all on the left? I already pointed this out in this thread, but the ignorance continues. Both the right and the left generally believe in the power of the state. In fact historically, up until the cooptation of the term libertarian in the 1970s by capitalist liars, the left was the side more likely to see a radical reduction in state power. Anarchists were on the left. Most Marxists see their goal as a stateless society (in practice vanguardism leads to a deeply oppressive state, but the goal is stateless society). The difference between the two sides is NOT the amount of state they want, but what they want the state to do. It is that simple. What fascists wanted the state to do was wholly right wing. What the Soviet Union wanted the state to do, was entirely different. Quite simple to anyone who isn't a simpleton.

 

Far left and far right both need to be highly authoritarian because people don't always want to go along with their programs.

Nazis = Communists. Gestapo = NKVD

Without the Gestapo and NKVD nei5her would have stayed in power very long.

Both regimes were defined by their policies, not your revisionist labels.

 

Your own quote not Mussolini's

""Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

The first thing you have to understand is that a fascist corporate is not an American corporation. Similar words different meaning.

 

*facepalm*

Look the definition up instead of making it up.

Everyone seems to think that I'm being some kind of socialist apologist here, when everyone already knows I'm not. I'm telling you there is no pure side of the spectrum, and what you people are using is not the "left-right" spectrum, even though you call it that; you are using a government power spectrum, from total control (totalitarian) to no control (anarchy). That is indeed a scale, but passing that scale off as the left-right scale is basically intentionally misleading so as to extra-vilify the left.

We are talking about different spectra: left-right describes the ultimate goal of the government - what should it be trying to achieve for society? Modern political thought has morphed this spectrum into equality vs. traditional social hierarchy since that is primarily what people debate over when trying to decide what policies the government should enact. anarchy-tyranny describes the amount of autonomy the government gives to individual people. These spectra do not line up in a way that you can merge them - especially as the left-right spectrum basically requires the populace be partial to at least a fair amount of government control in order to actually accomplish what they seek.

Notions of freedom vs. authority don't fit well here. For example, Democratic socialism is more "free", even though it's left-wing, than a hard-right republic run by a dictator (but not quite fascist - see Latin America).

 

Nazis saw themselves as right wing. Their contemporaries saw them as right wing. They saw themselves as mortal enemies of the Soviet Union. Yet it is others who are being revisionist?

 

Outside of language differences, just how did the NKVD and the Gestapo differ?

 

How did the NKVD and DINA differ? But I'm willing to bet you wouldn't call Augusto Pinochet a leftist.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! The democratic republican party didn't evolve into the Democratic party. After the collapse of the Federalist party there was only the Democratic Republican party. Clay who founded the Wig party was also a Democratic Republican because almost ever single politician was. It was pretty much a one party system.

 

What about democratic socialists, who allow personal freedom of action but socialist economics (equality - left), with bounds determined by a democratic system?
What about Fascists, who enforce a social hierarchy based on traditionalist morality and value to the state (inequality - right) using a dictator and absolute authority of the government?

Your co-relation doesn't work anymore, it would seem.

 

Right and Left wing are inherently inaccurate terms, yes? They come from the French Revolution where the defenders of the ancien regime sat on the right and the revolutionaries sat on the left of the seats in the Estates General. The idea stuck after they became a legislature and it soon became evident that the right wing were conservative and the left wing progressive or "liberal".

The thing is the whole thing has since changed radically. Most modern conservatives follow a philosophy that most Frenchmen, (or English) would call very liberal in 1800. Very, very few countries now even have any real class of "nobility" or "peasantry" to speak of, and yet the famous "middle class" or Bourgeoisie, was, in fact between these two. High and low incomes did tend to rest with one or the other but, the distinction of class was birth, not income. It was not at all uncommon for some French "nobles" to be very poor, and many of the bourgeoisie and even some peasants, (though not many of them) had what we would call Great Fortunes today.

The Nazis, in any case, were neither right or left. The Nazis 'philosophy' was "do what we say or die, and we may just kill you anyway". Hitler himself actually made this a part of Naziism. He called it Fuherprinzip and it was the idea that all power and all decision must devolve to one man. Ideology, common sense and even physical reality were malleable, only the Will of the Fuheher counted in the end.

Most of Naziism took what actual economic and social principles it had from Mussolini's Fascism and they were mainly derived from the sociologist Vilfredo Pareto. It also took a good deal of beliefs from those of the dominant school of American Psychology in the very early 20th century, particularly the eugenicists. I don't like to name names here though, because Naziism distorted and perverted many ideas of good men who deserved better. That includes Pareto, but his influence cannot be overlooked in either Italy or Germany.

I've gone on record here as saying I think that the Tea Party is the closest thing I've seen the Americans develop to a Nazi Party. Let's make a comparison

Believes in elitism? check for both, Naziism and Teaparty both embrace tax structures heavily favoring the very rich.
Uses a Racial enemy to unite its followers? check for both, Nazis using Jews and Tea Party using muslims, blacks and Jews (mainly muslims)
Looks upon violence as just another tool, will use Democracy first and violence later, or if Democracy fails? Nazis, yes, Tea Party threatening
Does not believe in Democracy?. Nazis yes, Tea Party no, at least so far
Believes in the leader above all?. Nazis yes, Tea Party no, This is the main difference, the TP has, so far, generated no charismatic leader. Hopefully they won't and will die out soon. They ARE textbook Fascists, like Mussolini's followers and such a philosophy is fundamentally antithetical to the Democratically based Republic which America tries to be.

 

I guess you were smoking in the boy's room during history class.

 

You are talking about two groups who allow what they allow , and seek to manage and design society how they want. Both groups are LEFTISTS compared to Constitutional Conservatives who seek not to so engineer society.

 

The tea party in the sense that most people refer to it here (including its adherents) will cease to exist the day after the 2016 inauguration.

The real Tea Party, the group that Ron Paul started, will soldier on. But the people who showed up at tea party rallies in 2010, and who rant all day long on talk radio and in forums like this one, are generally not from that group.

I also predict that most of the avowed tea partiers that are here now will deny that they were tea partier three years from now. They'll be just as hard to find in three years as people who admit that they supported George W Bush are now.

(of course, many of them are the same people).

 

Who cares what title idiots put in front of them ? Left wing and right wing , stupid stuff.

 

The Night of the Long Knives.


The night that Hitler ordered the SS to murder all Nazis who were left-wing and wanted to bring "Socialism" to Nazism. Hitler had them all killed.

That's how much Hitler liked Socialism.

Instead, he chose to associate and work hand-in-hand with wealthy corporations and industrialists. He made many of them very, very rich. Such is not the actions of a Socialist.

 

You are describing instruments!! How does the US intelligence system differ from any other modern intelligence system? They are very similar, and yet is the American system the same as the Jordanian system? Of course not. Sharing instruments is not at al the point. It is like saying the Roman Republic built roads and Eisenhower was famous for building roads, therefore Eisenhower was a Roman Emperor.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party#Party_legacy

The Democratic Republican Party evolved into the Democratic Party.

 

Makes perfect sense. LEFTISTS always think THEMSELVES to be right and genetically smarter than everyone else. It makes since they would try to kill each-other off since they think they are right, and the other wrong...

 

Oh dear ,lets use the example of your quote from Churchill about truth and lie travelling around the world ,see you can be wrong, totally mistaken , like Equating Fascism with Socialism .

I think you will find that Mark Twain , well known Author and social commentator , was the source of the Saying.

Churchill wasn't that bright!

Now as far as just because a political party says its something it must therefore be , wow , your Gullibility is amazing. Talk about Naiveté .National Socialism ,cannot exist National denotes Capitalist for starters .Socialism , is Internationalist or it is a Lie!

Lots of Lies get told in politics ,Capitalist politics is nothing but ,Lies, have you noticed yet from your experience .Hey OBAMA is a Lying Capitalist Politician, and if anyone thinks Just because the Democratic Party calls itself Democratic, so, therefore is, needs their head read.

Um what was the name of the party of Slave owners in the US Civil War ,um?? , oh that's right The Democrat Party.[Yep same one ,direct unbroken history]

See my point Yet?

 

And least we not for get a former Presidents grandfather was a loyal supporter of the Nazi Party. The one and only Prescott Bush.

 

We don't think we are right , we know we are from the Historical measure,the only objective one.

Capitalism lurches from one crisis to the next ,deepening as it goes , GFC will inevitably be followed by GFC 2.0,No recovery is possible ,only stagnation and depression.

Meanwhile , the wealth being extracted from the misery of Millions, is concentrated in the top 5%.No shortage of wealth its just where it Accumulates that's the problem.

Now could you explain how Capitalism Is going to progress society ??

 

Right-wing is not equivalent to liberty, despite what you keep insisting. Liberty does not exist in a specific place on the left-right spectrum, though if I had to say it was anywhere it is more common at the centre than at either end.

You have to stop insisting socially conservative market liberals (American conservatives) are one end of the spectrum, they aren't. On the left-right spectrum they're a bit to the right of center, and on a anarchy-tyranny scale they're a bit closer to the center than they are to anarchy, though they are still on that end of the spectrum.

 

Left wing means pro-immigration, internationalist, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, pro-environment, anti-corporations, pro-labor, anti-wealthy class, anti-racism.

does that sound like the Nazis?

 

Hahaha! Too funny. No the Democrat Republican Party did not evolve into the Democrat party. That is a bunch of garbage.